Bokeh: Do you like it or loathe it?

[Pablito]

Basically, and for the most part, it is an irrelevant byproduct of photographic / optical imaging.

I'll take a good photo with "bad" bokeh any day over a bad photo with "good" bokeh.

If the photo is good, folks are going to look at what's IN focus.

Nasty out of focus areas can certainly be distracting, though.

 

[Imagedowser]

Bokeh

Bokeh

f16sunshine #11, PLUS 1. Your question leaves, at least, a great distance between Love and Hate to be resolved. Should we also love or hate contrast, or other photographic design options? The extremes brought to light by the impressionist painters of the early 1900's were couched in moderation by those who chose to use them…. Picking and choosing is one of the tools we have to make photography, Art.

 

[Brian Legge]

So you have an interesting, compelling subject in the foreground and a visually cluttered, messy background which detracts from the scene. Shooting from another may be viable at some points, though sometimes the background itself is noisy from practical angles, the moment would be missed, etc.

Blurring the background with a wider aperture is just a tool for dealing with the situation. Another solution is to say 'there was never a compelling shot'. It all depends on what the photographer is trying to do.

I have no problem with selective focus like this, nor do I have an issue with F8/everything in focus shooting.

...now bokeh that draws attention to itself (I'm looking at you petzval lenses) bugs me. I know some people adore it but I have a hard time looking at it; it acts like a circular frame and pulls my attention away from the subject. Thats just personal taste but given that, I have to accept that others may feel the same way about bokeh on a whole.

Edit: An example shot where I believe the selective focus helped. People on all sides, no angle to shoot with a clean background, I wanted to be far enough away to capture a hint of context so filling the frame wouldn't have helped, etc.

 

[KM-25]

The only trend I see is that you just *live* for the internet....

 

[aizan]

the thing about using shallow dof to isolate subjects and handle busy backgrounds is where a lot of people make the mistake of ignoring the background and not choosing the best pov. you still have to frame the head or create whatever relationship you want between the foreground and background. bokeh is not going to solve the problem on it's own, especially if it exacerbates the problem. oftentimes, people shoot with the lens wide open where the bokeh is harsh on a certain lens and distance because they think that wider apertures are always better, even though it might look smoother and less distracting, if less disperse, when stopped down a couple stops.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Yesss, I agree. Personally, I'm appalled and offended by bokeh.
There is sufficient evidence that bokeh is often used to suppress in-focus regions in photography. I think it should be banned from RFF and if possible the entire Internet. There is no room for the hurtful suppression of in-focus regions in photographs. We must not allow oof regions to dominate in such an imperialist fashion. We must collectively ban all forms of oof, whether it be called bokeh or dof or blur. They are all merely code words for the inevitable suppression of in-focus regions in photography. 😀

 

[jsrockit]

The only trend I see is that you just *live* for the internet....

Very true...

 

[Addy101]

Yesss, I agree. Personally, I'm appalled and offended by bokeh.
There is sufficient evidence that bokeh is often used to suppress in-focus regions in photography. I think it should be banned from RFF and if possible the entire Internet. There is no room for the hurtful suppression of in-focus regions in photographs. We must not allow oof regions to dominate in such an imperialist fashion. We must collectively ban all forms of oof, whether it be called bokeh or dof or blur. They are all merely code words for the inevitable suppression of in-focus regions in photography. 😀

May the BLUR be with you:

😀

 

[noisycheese]

The only trend I see is that you just *live* for the internet....

I see that you have made 1291 posts here compared to my 1061 posts.
There, you have made 1299 posts compared to my 986.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. 😀

 

[x-ray]

Way over done like HDR and a dozen other fads over the last 50 rears.

Done with the right subject it can enhance but when bokeh becomes the content of the image then it's overdone.

 

[TXForester]

Rarely does a photo call for razor thin DoF. The amount of DoF needed/wante for a photo varies on a case by case situation. Hence I can't be for or against narrow DoF.

As to the quality of the out of focus areas, I can live with a lot if the photo has enough going for it. One exception is photo shot with a 500mm mirrored lens. Doughnut bokeh is just weird.

 

[daveywaugh]

IMO the Bokeh-trend of recent years has been fuelled by two external factors. Firstly, the need for high-quality / low bandwidth images for the internet. Compression of OOF areas is obviously much more efficient and allows for higher quality pics and smaller file sizes. Secondly, it's been a trend in design / art direction for about a decade to go back to the 'hero shot' with a positioning statement or slogan across an area of the image. Big in the 50s, then the 70s and has had a renaissance for a while now. So it's kind of been for technical and design trends IMO.

Personally I like bokeh when used well. I do however find 'bokeh test shots' weird though. A lot of 'OOF character' is fairly random... meaning, it really does depend a lot of subtle variables like light direction and contrast so you can't ALWAYS get great bokeh just because you are using 'lens X'. There are times a Noctilux OOF can look awful... of course, most of the time it looks fabulous 🙂

Bokeh quality is a consideration when I purchase a lens though. I'm not necessarily after razor thin focus - in fact, the best bokeh I've seen come out of the Zeiss Biogon-C 35mm f2.8 so go figure... Bokeh isn't about shooting wide open all the time as has been mentioned.

There are still lenses that I don't find to my liking when there is OOF - never been mad on the Nokton f1.4 for example (yet love the nokton f1.5).

Sometime we simply need to shoot wide open and that does mean bokeh. Personally I like to shoot a subject and the bokeh is a by-product that depends on my focus point and available light.

 

[uhoh7]

Variation of OOF areas between lenses is fundamental.

Some photos want a huge DOF, and others don't, or simply can't have it due to lens speed needed and FL.

With a 135 you will have Bokeh, like it nor not.

Bokeh is personality. That's over and above the usual F64 all in focus.

You want a coffee. Sometimes you don't want to notice the person making it, beyond "thank you", other times a conversation is real nice. 🙂

 

[kuuan]

Out of focus areas are important for a big part of photography. How could I 'not like' them?
If someone loves bokeh and concentrates on creating images 'focused' on bokeh, why not? By no means that would necessarily mean that his photography isn't good, it could be great just as any other.
The choice 'I like bokeh when it is used properly and not too frequently', though being the most positive choice, imo still carries an unnecessary negative connotation, therefore I had to choose '5-other'

 

[Roger Hicks]

Bokeh is one of those things like grey cards and the Zone System in that while it is very useful in its place, it attracts fanatics and people who think they know a great deal more about photography than they do.

Although the word is hopelessly over-used by some people, it is far from useless, as it replaces the somewhat cumbersome phrase that was in use before: the quality of the out-of-focus image. Long before the new word came into use, certain lenses had been prized for this: the original Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar was one.

From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/bokeh.html "Bokeh: For and Against".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gareth Rees]

Not that sensitive to it, either way

 

[daveleo]

I like the OOF rendering from some of my lenses, and I don't particularly care for it from some of my other lenses.

Not real sure how I vote to properly isolate that preference? 😀

Thanks, you saved me some typing 😀

 

[goamules]

Bokeh is not defined as "out of focus" but as "out of focus rendering". While there is nothing wrong with out of focus space in a picture (it often can't be avoided, or is desirable for better subject isolation) ....

Yeah, someone is posting a very confused poll.

To the OP, are you asking "do you like a lot of depth of field or a short depth of field?" That, is the question. And the answer is it depends on what I'm doing. A portrait photographer typically tries to focus on the subject, so traditionally you let the background go out of focus. Extreme depth of field is useful for landscapes and architecture, where you want the foreground flowers AND the mountains in focus.

Depth of field is one of the key artistic tools of photography. Our eyes work on short depth of field. You focus on the monitor in front of you, the room beyond is out of focus. The opposite, infinite depth of field, is what cell phone cameras and other wide angle, slow lenses can give. Useful at other times. I shoot more wide open than stopped down, almost always.

Asking "do you like bokeh" is asking "do you like good out of focus areas.?" Nothing to do with depth of field, and what some like in out of focus areas, some hate. It's subjective.

(Remember, "bokeh" is the quality of things out of focus. It is not the fact things are out of focus)

 

[ZuikoAndHisM3]

Personally, I feel it changes as to what you're photographing - I find Photographs of Flowers with 'bokeh' un-creative and boring.

I think when people talk of 'bokeh' they use the word to describe out of focus areas that are completely blown out and beyond recognition. But, when used properly it is great to lessen distractions in a Photograph without removing them entirely.

Just my opinion. But, I think that 35 F2 is the best Portrait lens you can buy.

 

[goamules]

Stopped down, because I wanted to show the tree and the canyon walls.

Wide open, because I wanted a pictorialist, impressionistic view of just the colors and the tips of the petals in focus.